If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

Homosexuality & Politics

The penguins cannot help you.

This is a new 'gay thread' for general discussion regarding homosexuality politically and socially. Sorry if you were sick of them, but apparently there will always be one, so we might as well make it a good one.

There are a lot of modern issues pertaining to homosexuality in the 21st century - this isn't personal, it's debate. Try to be sensitive, and if other people aren't sensitive to you, try your best to repay it with politeness, because we don't want to remember the thread like this:

Well I'm sorry I compared your sexuality to humping a tree.

A Guide to the Discussion Thus Far

As you may or may not know, there's been tons of 'gay threads' in the history of SPPF, and a lot of useful facts were learned, and a lot of problems were experienced that we can prevent. I apologize that it's so long, but you may fare better in this debate if you read it. I also hope to update it to reflect the conversation, so you don't have to read each page of the thread. Feel free to suggest additions or modifications, corrections, demand credit from me, whatever you like. I want to be accomodating.

You have to read at least half of it to know why there's a picture of penguins up there.

This is usually blasted as a slippery slope fallacy, because it is used to question what would be legalized after gay marriage. However, slippery slope is not always a fallacy, especially when you're talking about a legal system where decisions are considered precedence for future decisions. Comparing same-sex marriage to something else is often necessary to debate about it.

"Sexual deviance" is an umbrella term people against homosexuality use for homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality, and necrophilia. Gay-rights advocates (simply called 'advocates' after this), reject the idea that these practices are equivalent in any way, and draw a distinctive line between two adult human beings being sexually active with each other and assume everything else either takes advantage of an animal or a child which both have a lack of emotional and/or intellectual understanding. While it's true that children can understand and grant permission to marry in situations where child marriage is allowed, and both children and animals can indicate approval or comfort, the bulk of valuable critical thinking skills only develop during human puberty.

If interracial marriage is legal, then there's no reason we shouldn't legalize same sex marriage.

Advocates can use Argument from Precedent as well. Some use the civil rights battle for interracial marriage as a civil precedent for allowing gay marriage. Gay rights were included in civil rights movements in the 1960's, however, not everyone who approves or enjoys interracial marriage today believes same-sex marriage is a right. It's a matter of where the line is drawn.

What Doesn't Homophobia Mean?

A phobia is an intense rejection/revulsion toward something. Terms such as hydrophobic or photophobic aren't about fear, but rejection, so the suffix "-phobia" is not limited to fear, but also revulsion, rejection, or disgust. So how broad should the term "homophobia" be applied? Is it a narrow psychological term for someone whose obsessive disgust toward homosexuality interferes with their everyday life, or is it a political term that applies to everyone who isn't pro-gay rights? Are entire religions homophobic? You might want to practice discretion if you consider using this term, because when you use it too much, people stop taking it seriously.

The Deal With Leviticus

Originally Posted by Lev 20:13

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

First, notice it says that the act is detestable, not the people who did it. However, but should ask then if the person being judged WANTS to be separated from their act; if they say 'If you don't acknowledge I'm gay you don't acknowledge me' then in their eyes, if their act that they have no problem with is detestable, there is a gap in communication and they take it as they are being detested (hated).

Some of us on here have painstakingly debated that there is ample evidence that the death penalty in Levitus was a law that was observed in the society that the Old Testament was written in. In the New Testament, all the moral tenants that applied to the Christian citizenry (I believe there were certain Leviticus rules that applied to priests) were preserved, but Christ is observed telling them not to use the death penalty. And Rome was not a Hebrew nation anyway, as of the time they were polytheistic and worshipped the Roman gods, so Christians did not have the law on their side to put people to death with; they were only a church, so when somebody violated the Leviticus morals, the punishment became excommunication, which is the punishment in many Christian churches today for being gay. (I should know; my birthmother was excommunicated. I'm pretty sure she was not put to death!) While the example of Christ pardoning the prostitute (He without sin cast the first stone) is not the reason for the death penalty being null, it does suggest, or indicate, whichever you believe, that Christ does not want people to kill those who violated the rules of the church.

If Jesus Christ did reverse the death penalty on homosexuality, apparently the entire United Kingdom didn't pay attention for a millenia. The United Kingdom punished (male) homosexuals with the death penalty until 1861, when they switched the punishment to imprisonment until 1967, when it was decided age of consent had to be higher for homosexuals, starting at age 21. In 2001, the age of consent was leveled to 16, the same age of consent for heterosexual adults.

Appeal to Nature

Homosexuality isn't natural.

Since we are all honest and well meaning debaters, we should ask ourselves some questions about how we understand this statement. Are they talking about a) they way they perceive normal human behavior or b) the animal kingdom? Oftentimes, they're only talking about what's normal, so if you link them to this list of homosexual animals, you could start a big misunderstanding.

You might have said homosexuality isn't natural, completely thinking about the animal kingdom. The problem is, we can't derive a sense of wrong and right from the animal kingdom, because animals don't wear clothes, they're rapists, they sleep around, eat their own kind, kill one another while mating, etcetera. So before you use a gay penguin couple to prove that being gay IS natural, stop, think about it, and ask yourself if you can leave the debate having adequately explained the meaning of the word 'natural' and whether it's good or bad.

On another hand, there are also Social Darwinists around here, some of which think we need to model society off of natural law and natural selection in the animal kingdom, so you know, feel free to challenge that.

Is Homosexuality a Choice, and Does that Matter?

I didn't choose whether or not I liked vanilla ice cream.

To many gay rights advocates, homosexuality isn't a choice in the way that they can't choose which gender they prefer sexually. This might carry the assumption that everyone has to follow their sexual preferences. Some say that there is a possibility that stifling your inborn sexuality might result in depression or suicide.

I chose to like vanilla ice cream, because when I tasted it, it was good, so I decided to like it.

This person assumes that "deciding they liked it" is the same as "deciding to like it". Discovering that you like vanilla ice cream, and thus deciding to acknowledge that you like it, is different than tasting the ice cream, tasting that it's yucky, and then deciding it shouldn't taste yucky and then licking it again and having it taste good because you decided differently.

On the other hand, in the past five or so gay threads, we've had a few gay people tell us firsthand that they chose to be gay. They were mostly told, "Well, you're bisexual."

You can choose whether or not you like eating vanilla ice cream.

Not everyone is happy being gay. Some people CHOOSE to seek conversion therapy. In this case, you've got to ask yourself which means more - embracing their sexual preference, or being happy with the entire balance of their life.

If you prove homosexuality is a trait people are born with - how much does that achieve, anyway? Not everyone assumes that people are born the way they are supposed to be. Obviously there is the freedom, and sometimes the necessity, to change out of the state you're born into. Proving that homosexuality is an inborn trait is almost as pointless as proving that it's natural in the animal kingdom.

While the two American associations that both go by the name "APA" both claim that homosexuality is not a disorder, some people still see it as an atypical trait in men and women that is comparable to a developmental condition or other abnormality. For some, an absent desire for the opposite sex is all it takes to consider homosexuality not only an abnormality, but an imposition.

Marriage Equality

Same-sex couples have been acknowledged by different cultures throughout human history - but many of those famous examples differentiate between marriage and unions between same-sex couples, seeing them as something fundamentally different than the man+woman concept.

One reason gay couples might want to share the institution of marriage, and not adopt a new custom, is to remove the distinction of being different so that their version isn't seen as inferior or disappointing compared to 'regular marriage'. Marriage is a social tradition among family and friends that people don't want to be excluded from participating in just because they can't find themselves sexually attracted to the opposite gender.

Marriage & Matrimony

There's a difference between marriage in the eyes of the government, and holy matrimony. Not everyone who gets married does it in a church, and atheists get married too. Why not let gay people get married in the eyes of the government, with a marriage certificate and a ceremony in a house or a rented auditorium? There have been cases before of gay couples suing churches for refusing to marry them, so to many churches, they feel the need to reject gay marriage to protect themselves from lawsuit. So why not solve the conflict by passing laws giving immunity to churches who want to maintain their own marriage practices?

Gay Pride & Media

There are plenty of TV shows and movies where boys and girls feel romantically attracted toward each other, and that's considered young love and really a truth of life that is suitable for all audiences, separate from 'sexuality'. Gay relationships are typically relegated to romance/adult genres where it can be portrayed purely as a 'sexuality'. After DADT was repealed, a story about an airman coming out of the closet to his family on YouTube was picked up by many news stations. Coming out of the closet when you expect people to see you differently is a hard thing to do, and advocates might say it's an example of courage. Others wondered why a normal person talking about their sexuality should be news. Advocates might say that being gay is as much about love as it is about sex. Most same-sex relationships in the media take a sexual overtone and very few portray nonsexual, yet couple-love between two members of the same sex. Some people doubt that homosexuality is anything more than sexuality, and cite a high divorce rate among homosexuals to support this.

Not all gay people and gay-rights advocates like or approve of Gay Pride parades, because they often encourage the idea that homosexuality is hyper-sexual. Gay rights activists decided in the 1960's that they have to shock and desensitize people in order to gain acceptance, but some people believe this method has outgrown its purpose and is now about having a party instead of gaining acceptance.

No-Tears Easy Rules To Follow(These rules are actually redundant and double-enforced by Profesco's recent sticky, and in some cases triple-enforced with the actual rules of SPPF.)

1. No straw-quoting. Straw-quoting is when you link to someone's quote, and then replace what they say with something that is meant to mock their original message and/or generally humiliate them.

2. No defamation. Please do not use this thread to share links about what a member has done in order to discredit them or turn other members against them.

4. Do not use someone's family members as an example. Please don't use another member's family or friends as an example to prove something in the debate without getting permission from that member. They're not fair targets just because that member brought them into the debate.

5. Don't post giant/bold off-topic messages. Statements emphasized with a giant font, all caps, or a style meant to catch attention that are irrelevant to the topic like "U MAD" or "SICK BRO!" should be reported as spam. Don't do this with pictures, either.

7. Don't badger other users. Don't bug others to stop posting about a particular subject, or to stop providing sources you don't approve, since this creates spam. Feel free to not accept sources or to not reply.

8. Don't get off-topic. You can use this thread to talk about the way things relate to homosexuality, but don't start debating the legitimacy of those subjects. How religion relates to homosexuality is good - where that religion matters, bad. Homosexuality compared to polygamy, good. Whether polygamy is right or wrong, bad.

Last edited by CSolarstorm; 4th February 2012 at 11:22 PM.

Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore

Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

For me, it's the same as most others. I don't care if they're gay, let them do what they want, why should I care? But... stop sticking it in my face and in the media! Like, if you don't want to be bullied for being gay, stop running around with "Gay Pride!" or "Gay 4 Life!" signs stapled on you. Like, do what you want but stop bugging me about it, I don't care what you do.

†

"Whether you choose to believe or not, mystic power is and always will be there."
- Morty

The way I see it, homosexuality is simply a preference for which there are varying degrees. Those with malleable minds and loosely defined boundaries can indeed choose to be homosexuals; I tend to think of these types of people as the flavor of the month crowd. They don't necessarily feel one way or the other but outside forces, whether positive or negative, sway their views. Then there are those whose attractions are pretty well set in stone for what ever reason. These types are often the ones who struggle. And then there are those in between.

Either way, I don't care so long as you are happy. I've never had someone flaunt their homosexuality in my face to where I was disgusted. Uncomfortable, yes, but I did not hate them for it. I did not think poorly of them based on their life style. I was simply uncomfortable with my personal space being invaded.

Politically I see absolutely no reason to deny homosexual couples the right to legal marriage. As stated in your introduction the religious sacrament of marriage is different than a legal marriage. So any word of God, I feel, has no place in that debate. I mean what other arguments are there against homosexuality other than religion? We've already addressed nature in the introduction here, so whats left? Unsatisfactory Family/home environments? Well to argue that you'd have to have some kind of evidence that a homosexual household is in any way worse for a child than your average heterosexual household.

Last edited by ChedWick; 7th November 2011 at 4:34 AM.

Originally Posted by Kutie Pie

About 97% of these women posing for pornographic pictures are held at gunpoint, and it can be anywhere. The majority of the time is by force.

For me, it's the same as most others. I don't care if they're gay, let them do what they want, why should I care? But... stop sticking it in my face and in the media! Like, if you don't want to be bullied for being gay, stop running around with "Gay Pride!" or "Gay 4 Life!" signs stapled on you. Like, do what you want but stop bugging me about it, I don't care what you do.

Oh dear. You don't seem to know why they have parades and protest in the first place... you say 'let them do what they want', but gays are not given the same rights as heterosexuals in most countries. It is in essence no different to a law that prohibits interracial marriage, or mandates segregated water fountains.

If you were in their situation, how would you draw attention to the predicament?

I really don't plan on joining this debate much, but that was really great introduction Sunny. But to stay on topic...

Originally Posted by Razor Xtreme

For me, it's the same as most others. I don't care if they're gay, let them do what they want, why should I care? But... stop sticking it in my face and in the media! Like, if you don't want to be bullied for being gay, stop running around with "Gay Pride!" or "Gay 4 Life!" signs stapled on you. Like, do what you want but stop bugging me about it, I don't care what you do.

I do somewhat agree, I too am kinda of tired of seeing all the "Gay Pride" and Parades and the like everywhere. Also since i'm not gay, I don't plan to support or oppose anything that has to do with gay rights. I'd much rather foucus on the bigger problems of the world.

Of course they can't do everything they want so they have to get the world out somehow.

I do somewhat agree, I too am kinda of tired of seeing all the "Gay Pride" and Parades and the like everywhere. Also since i'm not gay, I don't plan to support or oppose anything that has to do with gay rights. I'd much rather foucus on the bigger problems of the world.

I'd say the battle for civil rights is a pretty important battle.

Originally Posted by Kutie Pie

About 97% of these women posing for pornographic pictures are held at gunpoint, and it can be anywhere. The majority of the time is by force.

Oh dear. You don't seem to know why they have parades and protest in the first place... you say 'let them do what they want', but gays are not given the same rights as heterosexuals in most countries. It is in essence no different to a law that prohibits interracial marriage, or mandates segregated water fountains.

If you were in their situation, how would you draw attention to the predicament?

I'm not talking about their parades, I'm talking about all the news about "coming out" and all that. If someone went on the news and said "I'm straight!" they'd probably get a lawsuit for "offense to gays" or something, but if someone went on the news and said "I'm gay! I've come out of the closet!" they'd be worshipped for "revealing something so precious...", I was never comfortable with the idea of gays, not because of my religion, but I just didn't think it looked right, but now I can accept it, I just don't want to hear about it every time I turn on the TV.

†

"Whether you choose to believe or not, mystic power is and always will be there."
- Morty

Thank you SunnyC for making a sane version of Alleviate's debate. I don't know what took the mods so long to realize that wasn't going anywhere good.

Originally Posted by Razor Xtreme

I'm not talking about their parades, I'm talking about all the news about "coming out" and all that. If someone went on the news and said "I'm straight!" they'd probably get a lawsuit for "offense to gays" or something, but if someone went on the news and said "I'm gay! I've come out of the closet!" they'd be worshipped for "revealing something so precious...", I was never comfortable with the idea of gays, not because of my religion, but I just didn't think it looked right, but now I can accept it, I just don't want to hear about it every time I turn on the TV.

Yeah, those gays... They're always getting offended by straight people being straight, and... Wait. What are you talking about? Straight people don't need to come out of the closet. They are expected to be straight, because most people are straight. People don't discriminate against straight people.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

I'm not talking about their parades, I'm talking about all the news about "coming out" and all that. If someone went on the news and said "I'm straight!" they'd probably get a lawsuit for "offense to gays" or something, but if someone went on the news and said "I'm gay! I've come out of the closet!" they'd be worshipped for "revealing something so precious...", I was never comfortable with the idea of gays, not because of my religion, but I just didn't think it looked right, but now I can accept it, I just don't want to hear about it every time I turn on the TV.

Don't be stupid. Heterosexuals don't live in a society where their sexuality is stigmatized and they never will. (Unless gay people take over the earth and repress them or something) It's also funny how you claim to accept them, but it bothers you to hear about them on TV? Why does it bother you? What's the big deal? Will the rainbow signs that people are holding on TV come get you? If it bothers you that much you need to do some serious self examining.

I'm not talking about their parades, I'm talking about all the news about "coming out" and all that.

I've never heard of people coming out and making the news for it, unless you're talking about awful trash media and gossip magazines. In that case, just look away. I agree those sorts of shows/magazines are dreadful but gays aren't the ones to blame, the airheaded stay-at-home mothers who consume them are.

I just have one question on the matter, and since its a person to person idea it should be an easy one; why is that I hear pro gay marriage arguments use the straight divorce rate (Currently a whopping 50% in the States, as I'm sure we all know by now) as a reason they should receive the option, when gays are just as flawed and human as straights, and just as capable of bad choices and expectations? It seems like a needless attack.

^ Never underestimate the ability of 1 Megabyte to bring out every emotion imaginable.

I just have one question on the matter, and since its a person to person idea it should be an easy one; why is that I hear pro gay marriage arguments use the straight divorce rate (Currently a whopping 50% in the States, as I'm sure we all know by now) as a reason they should receive the option, when gays are just as flawed and human as straights, and just as capable of bad choices and expectations? It seems like a needless attack.

Perhaps it has something to do with the theory that gay couples value marriage more, because they aren't allowed to do it.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

Just for the sake of argument, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here, (I hope this is allowed) simply because I would like to see the opposing arguments and intelligent discussion surrounding the arguments I put forward.

Commonly, same-sex marriage opponents will argue that:-

If gay couples wish to marry on the grounds that it's 'equal,' then what is stopping a polygamist from claiming that their marriage is 'equal' and deserving of the same recognition? (Keep in mind, I'm referring only to polygamy here; not paedophilic or zoophilic marriages.) Mormons, for example, sanction such relationships and would recognise them within their own circles. Technically, all parties in a polygamous relationship can consent and therefore, from a same-sex marriage advocate's point of view, this would warrant the acceptance of plural marriages as well. What evidence is there to suggest that polygamous marriages are unlikely to result from the legalisation of same-sex marriage?

Just for the sake of argument, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here, (I hope this is allowed) simply because I would like to see the opposing arguments and intelligent discussion surrounding the arguments I put forward.

Commonly, same-sex marriage opponents will argue that:-

If gay couples wish to marry on the grounds that it's 'equal,' then what is stopping a polygamist from claiming that their marriage is 'equal' and deserving of the same recognition? (Keep in mind, I'm referring only to polygamy here; not paedophilic or zoophilic marriages.) Mormons, for example, sanction such relationships and would recognise them within their own circles. Technically, all parties in a polygamous relationship can consent and therefore, from a same-sex marriage advocate's point of view, this would warrant the acceptance of plural marriages as well. What evidence is there to suggest that polygamous marriages are unlikely to result from the legalisation of same-sex marriage?

Would anyone care to respond to this?

I have no problem accepting polygamous marriages.

Originally Posted by chuboy

I've never heard of people coming out and making the news for it, unless you're talking about awful trash media and gossip magazines. In that case, just look away. I agree those sorts of shows/magazines are dreadful but gays aren't the ones to blame, the airheaded stay-at-home mothers who consume them are.

I rarely see the actual news on tv but I do check out a lot of online news sources and I see more coming outs of celebrities and politicians than I care to remember.

Originally Posted by Malanu

I'll be honest when someone "comes out" my normal reaction is, "So?" I don't care what anyone's sexual orientation is(with a few exceptions). So by "outing" oneself, it neither helps nor hinders a political agenda in my eyes.

I feel about the same. I get why some may do it; they feel they're an idol and by coming gout they create a bit of a comfort zone for others who may look up to them.

Originally Posted by Demonsead

I'm just going to watch this turn into pointlessness again.

Can't say pointless responses from people like you really help out.

Last edited by ChedWick; 7th November 2011 at 8:14 PM.

Originally Posted by Kutie Pie

About 97% of these women posing for pornographic pictures are held at gunpoint, and it can be anywhere. The majority of the time is by force.

If gay couples wish to marry on the grounds that it's 'equal,' then what is stopping a polygamist from claiming that their marriage is 'equal' and deserving of the same recognition? (Keep in mind, I'm referring only to polygamy here; not paedophilic or zoophilic marriages.) Mormons, for example, sanction such relationships and would recognise them within their own circles. Technically, all parties in a polygamous relationship can consent and therefore, from a same-sex marriage advocate's point of view, this would warrant the acceptance of plural marriages as well. What evidence is there to suggest that polygamous marriages are unlikely to result from the legalisation of same-sex marriage?

Would anyone care to respond to this?

Unless someone is being forced into the relationship, then I don't see the problem with either. Call me when abuse and rape enter the equation.

For me, it's the same as most others. I don't care if they're gay, let them do what they want, why should I care? But... stop sticking it in my face and in the media! Like, if you don't want to be bullied for being gay, stop running around with "Gay Pride!" or "Gay 4 Life!" signs stapled on you. Like, do what you want but stop bugging me about it, I don't care what you do.

I want to focus on the media portion of this statement. When you say media, exactly what do you mean? Media encompasses a variety of things (TV, movies, video games, and music for example). Including gay people in these different mediums is about one of two things: 1.) Money or 2.) Appealing to/representing a wider audience. Including LGBT characters in these different forms is another way to not only bring light to LGBT specific issues, but to also appeal to a different group of people.

Originally Posted by Razor Xtreme

I'm not talking about their parades, I'm talking about all the news about "coming out" and all that. If someone went on the news and said "I'm straight!" they'd probably get a lawsuit for "offense to gays" or something, but if someone went on the news and said "I'm gay! I've come out of the closet!" they'd be worshipped for "revealing something so precious...", I was never comfortable with the idea of gays, not because of my religion, but I just didn't think it looked right, but now I can accept it, I just don't want to hear about it every time I turn on the TV.

You don't hear about it everytime you turn on the TV. Honestly, if you look at famous people who come out, there's usually some sort of context that makes said coming out "scandalous." Like Ricky Martin for example: he denied, denied, and then kind of denied for years and then finally came out and it was that past denial that made his story "interesting."

There are tons of famous people that publicly come out of the closet however you really never hear about them because, other than the fact that they're famous, there isn't anything spectacular or interesting about their story. If there is a wider context to their coming out, then it makes the news.

Originally Posted by Pinsirius

I just have one question on the matter, and since its a person to person idea it should be an easy one; why is that I hear pro gay marriage arguments use the straight divorce rate (Currently a whopping 50% in the States, as I'm sure we all know by now) as a reason they should receive the option, when gays are just as flawed and human as straights, and just as capable of bad choices and expectations? It seems like a needless attack.

I assume it is most likely to discredit the argument that gays will ruin the sanctity of marriage, as divorce has already plagued 50% of marriages. On the one hand, it is a valid thought to propose that gays could ruin marriage or whatever, but on the other hand using the mistakes of others does not necessarily make you better, which is why that argument (50% of straight marriages end in divorce) is a bad one.

Originally Posted by Dusk

If gay couples wish to marry on the grounds that it's 'equal,' then what is stopping a polygamist from claiming that their marriage is 'equal' and deserving of the same recognition? (Keep in mind, I'm referring only to polygamy here; not paedophilic or zoophilic marriages.) Mormons, for example, sanction such relationships and would recognise them within their own circles. Technically, all parties in a polygamous relationship can consent and therefore, from a same-sex marriage advocate's point of view, this would warrant the acceptance of plural marriages as well. What evidence is there to suggest that polygamous marriages are unlikely to result from the legalisation of same-sex marriage?

There is no evidence because, as you so kindly pointed out, there are really no legal restrictions on polygamous marriage. The only reason it isn't allowed is because of personal or religious reasons, or of course maybe it has something to do with the paperwork involved in marriage and taxes and all that which I would bet our government is probably too lazy to figure out.

Plural marriages create no harm to anyone innocent party outside of the consenting adults, therefore the only reasons to be against polygamy stem from personal, religious, or political roots.

I hope that came out clearly. My biggest problem in these debates is that sometimes my point is lost in my ramblings...

Originally Posted by Demonsead

I'm just going to watch this turn into pointlessness again.

Thank you for pointlessly helping turn this into pointlessness with that pointless post.

It was recently pointed out in mattj's Bible thread that Leviticus prohibits sexuality by saying "thou shalt not lie with a man as you would a woman", or the law states that you'll be stoned to death. According to mattj, Jesus Christ reversed the death penalty for homosexuality along with other 'sexual deviancies' when he rescues the prostitute saying 'let he without sin cast the first stone', but not the decision that homosexuality was a sin. Jesus didn't explicitly say, 'stop killing gay people', this is just a reasonable (your mileage may vary) interpretation of his actions.

That Jesus quote has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Jesus said it to stop people from stoning an adulteress, because it was hypocritical for them to kill her but not her lover as well. The quote has other interpretations. Perhaps Jesus was saying that we should never execute others ever. Perhaps Jesus wanted to cast the first stone himself, because he was without sin. I don't know how anyone can attribute the quote to homosexuality.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

I assume it is most likely to discredit the argument that gays will ruin the sanctity of marriage, as divorce has already plagued 50% of marriages. On the one hand, it is a valid thought to propose that gays could ruin marriage or whatever, but on the other hand using the mistakes of others does not necessarily make you better, which is why that argument (50% of straight marriages end in divorce) is a bad one.

The argument even then isn't suppose to whitewash gay marriage but is one of the many examples of double standards employed by those against gay marriages. And really, hypocritical arguments suggest that the person in question doesn't have a legitamite gripe against gay marriage, but is trying to hide the fact that they are bigots through excuses.

I always thought that the retort used by gays that divorce ruins the sanctity of marriage more than gay nuptials a poor one. Divorce doesn't affect the sanctity of marriage at all. What does divorce even have to do with the sanctity of marriage as an institution at all? It may ruin the sanctity of your invidual marriage, but hardly says anything about the institution itself.

However, from a Christian's point of view, it would violate the sanctity of marrage because in their view, your redefining what marriage is in the first place.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

I always thought that the retort used by gays that divorce ruins the sanctity of marriage more than gay nuptials a poor one. Divorce doesn't affect the sanctity of marriage at all. What does divorce even have to do with the sanctity of marriage as an institution at all? It may ruin the sanctity of your individual marriage, but hardly says anything about the institution itself.

What I was going to say; something built on a high ideal (That isn't exactly unrealized- how many of us know multiple couples who made it past the first seven years? I sure do.) isn't inherently ruined because some instances don't work out, particularly when there are clear patterns as to why.

^ Never underestimate the ability of 1 Megabyte to bring out every emotion imaginable.

That Jesus quote has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Jesus said it to stop people from stoning an adulteress, because it was hypocritical for them to kill her but not her lover as well. The quote has other interpretations. Perhaps Jesus was saying that we should never execute others ever. Perhaps Jesus wanted to cast the first stone himself, because he was without sin. I don't know how anyone can attribute the quote to homosexuality.

Go reread the passage and tell me if you think I made it better. I was of course talking about mattj's assertion in his thread, but I added a bit more of a critical tone. So far his is the best counter to the Leviticus argument, and everything needs to be balanced in the guide.

Thank you to everyone for giving me so many nice complements about the thread!

Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore

Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

I always thought that the retort used by gays that divorce ruins the sanctity of marriage more than gay nuptials a poor one. Divorce doesn't affect the sanctity of marriage at all. What does divorce even have to do with the sanctity of marriage as an institution at all? It may ruin the sanctity of your individual marriage, but hardly says anything about the institution itself.

I always interpreted the argument to mean that we allow people to marry and divorce at the drop of a hat, but ignore those who genuinely love their partner. Look at the whole Kim Kardashian thing as an example - we let her have a big lavish ceremony so she can get married only to divorce the guy like five minutes later in what was almost certainly just a publicity stunt, but when two people who happen to have the same genitalia genuinely love each other and want to be together, all of a sudden that's just going too far.
If we accept your premise that divorce ruins the sanctity of an individual's marriage (and I personally do, it's a lot more reasonable than saying all marriage is worthless because of the divorce rate), then we now have to ask why allowing gays to get married would destroy the sanctity of marriage as a whole, or even how it would destroy the sanctity of your individual marriage. I could also preemptively get into the fact that the Bible condemns divorce just as much if not moreso than homosexuality, but I'd really rather not talk about the Bible unless/until someone else brings it up.